Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9069140" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Then we cannot, from &quot;popular,&quot; reason that things are well-liked. Just that they are common.Something being common does not make it well-liked. &quot;Popular&quot; can mean either one. Don't let a fallacy of equivocation leak in as a result.Okay, but what does &quot;many&quot; mean? If a thousand people like it, is that &quot;popular&quot; when millions of people now play D&amp;D? If a million people play it without regard for its mechanics, can we reason from its &quot;popularity&quot; to say that therefore people absolutely adore its mechanics and changing them in even the slightest degree is super ultra mega bad never ever ever do that?Yes, because &quot;popular&quot; means two different things: commonly used and well-liked. I apologize for misspeaking. I should have said &quot;commonly-used&quot; to avoid confusion.Fighters have been commonly used in every edition. Yet, as I have said--and again, not one person has disagreed with me--the 3e Fighter, which was extremely commonly used, is widely regarded even by 3e fans as a poorly-designed class. Hence, poor design is not enough to make people avoid the Fighter. (Edit: Okay, I hadn't seen it yet, but Lanefan has slightly disputed it.)Then prove it, or move on from the discussion, since all we have are beliefs and bare beliefs are not particularly worth discussing unless we agree on the broad strokes but disagree on the particulars. Provide the data which shows it, or move on. Don't just rely on &quot;this is commonly used.&quot; Because, as it seems you recognize now, &quot;this is commonly used&quot; IS NOT the same thing as &quot;this is deeply beloved exactly the way it is and you should not make any changes to it.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9069140, member: 6790260"] Then we cannot, from "popular," reason that things are [I]well-liked[/I]. Just that they are [I]common[/I]. Something being common does not make it well-liked. "Popular" can mean either one. Don't let a fallacy of equivocation leak in as a result. Okay, but what does "many" mean? If a thousand people like it, is that "popular" when [I]millions[/I] of people now play D&D? If a million people play it without regard for its mechanics, can we reason from its "popularity" to say that therefore people absolutely adore its mechanics and changing them in even the slightest degree is super ultra mega bad never ever ever do that? Yes, because "popular" means two different things: [I]commonly used[/I] and [I]well-liked[/I]. I apologize for misspeaking. I should have said "commonly-used" to avoid confusion. Fighters have been [I]commonly used[/I] in every edition. Yet, as I have said--and again, [I]not one person[/I] has disagreed with me--the 3e Fighter, [I]which was extremely commonly used[/I], is widely regarded even by 3e fans as a poorly-designed class. Hence, poor design is not enough to make people avoid the Fighter. (Edit: Okay, I hadn't seen it yet, but Lanefan has [I]slightly[/I] disputed it.) Then prove it, or move on from the discussion, since all we have are beliefs and bare beliefs are not particularly worth discussing unless we agree on the broad strokes but disagree on the particulars. Provide the data which shows it, or move on. Don't just rely on "this is commonly used." Because, as it seems you recognize now, "this is commonly used" IS NOT the same thing as "this is deeply beloved exactly the way it is and you should not make any changes to it." [/QUOTE]

Verification